BC NDP and Greens form coalition gov't. What does that mean for Alberta?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Greens and NDP may both be left of centre but they really don't like one another. The joy of personalities. And first crack at governing is Clark. The Greens have also stated they will vote independently so the Liberals if they give some gifts may stay in power a while. For Kinder Morgan it's a federal approval and done. If BC decides to be a bad player, politics is a blood sport and the back room dealing will likely get ugly. BC will eventually lose. And lose credibility. My opinion

My antidepressent drug of choice is running. Cheaper with less side effects!

I can't see it lasting. The greens want user fees, tolls, they really want to make it more expensive than it is to live in BC. The NDP want to hand out freebies, at least that's what Horgan said. I have friends in BC that voted green, rather than vote for the NDP. They aren't sure how they feel with them holding the balance of power with only 3 seats.

I thought Clarke did well for BC, I would have voted for her again,but on another forum, they thought she was too close to the feds .Interesting times, let's see how Notley works with them over KM, we know it will be tied up in court, dozens of FN groups will fly in to support other eco terrorists.

It will all come unraveled when nobody is able to stop the Trans Mountain Expansion on the provincial level. Trudeau has some serious bills to pay, and more to gain in the BC Interior, Alberta and Saskatchewan than to loose in the lower mainland.

It will all come unraveled when nobody is able to stop the Trans Mountain Expansion on the provincial level. Trudeau has some serious bills to pay, and more to gain in the BC Interior, Alberta and Saskatchewan than to loose in the lower mainland.

Trudeau announced that the change in government won't derail the project. I expect the opposition will be fierce, but it'll be built. The momentary concern is the financing - stocks fell with the new government. They'll get the funding though.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

NDP/Greens just making noises to get noticed. The Feds should state right of the bat that anyone getting in the way of the pipeline expansion will be dealt with double quick. Either heavily fined, jail time or both.

NDP/Greens just making noises to get noticed. The Feds should state right of the bat that anyone getting in the way of the pipeline expansion will be dealt with double quick. Either heavily fined, jail time or both.

The greens were reading off their rights as a province, and of course the rights of aboriginals.

A one seat majority when the NDP and Green seats are combined. Has there ever been a more fragile minority government in Canadian electoral history?

Before the BC Legislature begins sitting a speaker is elected by secret ballot from among the MLAs of all parties. The speaker only votes in the case of a tie which almost never happens. Will be interesting to watch political developments in Lotus Land over the next little while.

Even though the anti-pipeline politicians in B.C. cannot legally stop the pipeline unilaterally, they can put up all kinds of obstacles, such as refusing construction permits or reversing the environmental assessment awarded to the project last January.On Tuesday, Green Leader Andrew Weaver alluded to Section 35 of the Constitution dealing with aboriginal rights as a way to fight the pipeline.

Even though the anti-pipeline politicians in B.C. cannot legally stop the pipeline unilaterally, they can put up all kinds of obstacles, such as refusing construction permits or reversing the environmental assessment awarded to the project last January.On Tuesday, Green Leader Andrew Weaver alluded to Section 35 of the Constitution dealing with aboriginal rights as a way to fight the pipeline.

My guess is the BC government will last 6-18 months. Not sure how long a 44 seat coalition vs a 43 seat opposition can last, unless they negotiate everything that could be a confidence vote beforehand.

It will all come unraveled when nobody is able to stop the Trans Mountain Expansion on the provincial level. Trudeau has some serious bills to pay, and more to gain in the BC Interior, Alberta and Saskatchewan than to loose in the lower mainland.

Would have to disagree. ..the pro pipeline group won't vote for JT regardless and with stabbing his base , the left, environmentalists he's going be lucky to keep power . Combine the fact that Notely's at war with Saskatewan ( Brad Wall ) , , now B.C , plus all Albertan's with her carbon tax scam ....There's just too much fighting.

Now remember it was a Liberal minister that threaten military force should the people protest the line....it's just to ugly of an environment.

I see a lot of protectionism, fighting and both leaders will fall. ...possibly to an NDP government .

The opponents of the pipeline(s) running through B C have been running rough shot for too long. If these pipelines have approval from all levels in regards to route, safety, environmental, monetary gains etc. people who stand in the way should be charged with obstruction. Anyone causing havoc or vandalism of these pipelines should be arrested. If Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the new NDP/Green coalition in B C want to start holding things up they should be swiftly told by the feds that it's in the national interest and to button it.

My guess is the BC government will last 6-18 months. Not sure how long a 44 seat coalition vs a 43 seat opposition can last, unless they negotiate everything that could be a confidence vote beforehand.

They had better make sure everyone is there for a vote, don't be ill, don't go to the washroom. I doubt it will last 18 months.

The opponents of the pipeline(s) running through B C have been running rough shot for too long. If these pipelines have approval from all levels in regards to route, safety, environmental, monetary gains etc. people who stand in the way should be charged with obstruction. Anyone causing havoc or vandalism of these pipelines should be arrested. If Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the new NDP/Green coalition in B C want to start holding things up they should be swiftly told by the feds that it's in the national interest and to button it.

Hate to break this to you but , as Canadians we are afforded certain basic rights and freedoms , by constitution . Superceding some federal nimrod and, it's agency's

What is being proposed is the twinning of an existing pipeline along a ROW located in close proximity to an existing highway corridor to the West Coast with the terminus being Canada's busiest port located in its third largest metropolis. Hardly a pristine wilderness.

The existing pipeline supplies oil to refineries in Kamloops and Burnaby to serve BC residents as well as refineries in Washington State. In addition to shipping crude oil to tankers that have safely traversed Burrard Inlet with zero spills since 1956, the existing Westridge Marine Terminal also delivers jet fuel by pipeline to Vancouver International Airport.

The biggest lie out of Alberta and it's oilsands is in the reclamation . They don't have the technology nor the resources to clean that disaster up ( return it to its original state <___that was the deal ). If I were B.C , I would tell Alberta to clean up its own mess before preaching about social license and the environment. Ruin your own province....when the profits dry up , who's clean the mess up ? Much like all the abandon oil wells .

Maybe they need to call in some of these global bodys , the U.N. Deem it a disaster

Only need to look at the provinces balance sheets to see this one trick pony's a failure

Great to see the usual suspects going postal at anything outside the narrowest of conventional dogma.

For the record, here's what I've said -- and meant -- so far in this thread:

The tar sludge is far too widely acknowledged to be somehow important to this country as a whole, and so the pipes to carry it WILL be built, regardless of anyone's panicked speculation about political failure and constitutional warfare.

But dependence on the tar sludge is an illusion, a comfortable drug for people to cowardly to imagine anything different.

We are bound on oil, but that is not our strong point. It is our weakest point, and if we did not have oil as a crutch, we would have a fundamentally stronger, more stable, and ultimately more prosperous economic foundation. Our economy could have been founded on any number of sectors without the endless repetition of excess boom and bust -- not the usual mild recessions and period of growth, but manias alternating every fifteen years with depressions.

Instead we've had eight decades of increasing drug addiction, and it has made us weak, cowardly, and jittery.

And you'll howl out with your noise anyone who tells you that you are a pathetic addict. And like any addict you will eventually be better off it you manage to go cold turkey.

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

^There are people/groups/businesses along those pipelines. Some are very eager to get it started hoping they can get some business and money from it. Then there are the ones who are going to protest, protest, protest. Their end game is still the same. How much they can leverage in the way of compensation for whatever wrong the pipeline is supposedly going to do. The latter seem to have a lot of time on their hands to protest as most of them don't work.

^There are people/groups/businesses along those pipelines. Some are very eager to get it started hoping they can get some business and money from it. Then there are the ones who are going to protest, protest, protest. Their end game is still the same. How much they can leverage in the way of compensation for whatever wrong the pipeline is supposedly going to do. The latter seem to have a lot of time on their hands to protest as most of them don't work.

^There are people/groups/businesses along those pipelines. Some are very eager to get it started hoping they can get some business and money from it. Then there are the ones who are going to protest, protest, protest. Their end game is still the same. How much they can leverage in the way of compensation for whatever wrong the pipeline is supposedly going to do. The latter seem to have a lot of time on their hands to protest as most of them don't work.

Yep, with BC its me first posturing, what I do get, and as this journalist recants has been occurring as long as confederation.

Interesting, innit: a Trudeau who has explicitly sided with Alberta's economic interests against the populist feeling in another province.

Will the stomach-churning right-wing scum-bags give him any credit at all for this?

Good god, what a stupid question I just asked.

I think you already know the answer to that - nope. There is still that crowd here in Alberta that will not vote for him because of his name or his party and it does not matter what he does or doesn't they will still come up with some imagined reason to dislike him.

If you took a poll in Alberta you would probably find support for the pipeline as strong (or stronger) in Alberta than opposition to it in BC, so "populist feeling" as you refer to it is not just in BC.

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

The people who seem to be more opposed are those who are closer to the pipeline in the lower mainland, which leads me to believe that all their recent concern about the planet and saving the environment is just a cover for NIMBY.

Vancouver is chock full of vehicles burning fuel from the Alberta oil sands - yes, Virginia that is where it really comes from. Now if they could run their economy on hot air and hypocrisy, they wouldn't need fuel from Alberta.

Interesting, innit: a Trudeau who has explicitly sided with Alberta's economic interests against the populist feeling in another province.

Will the stomach-churning right-wing scum-bags give him any credit at all for this?

Good god, what a stupid question I just asked.

I think you already know the answer to that - nope. There is still that crowd here in Alberta that will not vote for him because of his name or his party and it does not matter what he does or doesn't they will still come up with some imagined reason to dislike him.

If you took a poll in Alberta you would probably find support for the pipeline as strong (or stronger) in Alberta than opposition to it in BC, so "populist feeling" as you refer to it is not just in BC.

Trudeau??? when he sees 'the need' to reduce the 700,000 barrels of oil imported into eastern Canada per day, everyday, then we'll talk, right now he's done nothing but okay a pipeline that will be tied in court for years, and said no to one, because of Quebec..the greedy petulant child of Canada

Interesting, innit: a Trudeau who has explicitly sided with Alberta's economic interests against the populist feeling in another province.

Will the stomach-churning right-wing scum-bags give him any credit at all for this?

Good god, what a stupid question I just asked.

I think you already know the answer to that - nope. There is still that crowd here in Alberta that will not vote for him because of his name or his party and it does not matter what he does or doesn't they will still come up with some imagined reason to dislike him.

If you took a poll in Alberta you would probably find support for the pipeline as strong (or stronger) in Alberta than opposition to it in BC, so "populist feeling" as you refer to it is not just in BC.

Trudeau??? when he sees 'the need' to reduce the 700,000 barrels of oil imported into eastern Canada per day, everyday, then we'll talk, right now he's done nothing but okay a pipeline that will be tied in court for years, and said no to one, because of Quebec..the greedy petulant child of Canada

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

The people who seem to be more opposed are those who are closer to the pipeline in the lower mainland, which leads me to believe that all their recent concern about the planet and saving the environment is just a cover for NIMBY.

Vancouver is chock full of vehicles burning fuel from the Alberta oil sands - yes, Virginia that is where it really comes from. Now if they could run their economy on hot air and hypocrisy, they wouldn't need fuel from Alberta.

Agreed, but its even more tenuous a position for them, or Montreal to have, as we have instances of people living in industrial ports where any resource is shipped in in huge tanker amounts and yet they choose to turn their noses up at pipelines under the supposed protection of environment umbrella while seemingly ignoring all the huge tankers.

Yet more coastal habitat has been damaged/ruined by Tankers than pipelines and tankers put multi jurisdictions at risk. With tanker spills they can occur anywhere and effect huge areas anywhere. With pipeline usually only the immediate areas are at risk. makes sense to have pipelines near water as mitigated and controlled and monitored as possible though.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

The people who seem to be more opposed are those who are closer to the pipeline in the lower mainland, which leads me to believe that all their recent concern about the planet and saving the environment is just a cover for NIMBY.

Vancouver is chock full of vehicles burning fuel from the Alberta oil sands - yes, Virginia that is where it really comes from. Now if they could run their economy on hot air and hypocrisy, they wouldn't need fuel from Alberta.

Agreed, but its even more tenuous a position for them, or Montreal to have, as we have instances of people living in industrial ports where any resource is shipped in in huge tanker amounts and yet they choose to turn their noses up at pipelines under the supposed protection of environment umbrella while seemingly ignoring all the huge tankers.

Yet more coastal habitat has been damaged/ruined by Tankers than pipelines and tankers put multi jurisdictions at risk. With tanker spills they can occur anywhere and effect huge areas anywhere. With pipeline usually only the immediate areas are at risk. makes sense to have pipelines near water as mitigated and controlled and monitored as possible though.

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

The people who seem to be more opposed are those who are closer to the pipeline in the lower mainland, which leads me to believe that all their recent concern about the planet and saving the environment is just a cover for NIMBY.

Vancouver is chock full of vehicles burning fuel from the Alberta oil sands - yes, Virginia that is where it really comes from. Now if they could run their economy on hot air and hypocrisy, they wouldn't need fuel from Alberta.

Agreed, but its even more tenuous a position for them, or Montreal to have, as we have instances of people living in industrial ports where any resource is shipped in in huge tanker amounts and yet they choose to turn their noses up at pipelines under the supposed protection of environment umbrella while seemingly ignoring all the huge tankers.

Yet more coastal habitat has been damaged/ruined by Tankers than pipelines and tankers put multi jurisdictions at risk. With tanker spills they can occur anywhere and effect huge areas anywhere. With pipeline usually only the immediate areas are at risk. makes sense to have pipelines near water as mitigated and controlled and monitored as possible though.

With more pipelines comes more tanker traffic .

If servicing international markets, yes, if serving domestic markets, or industry no. I specifically mentioned Montreal as the Mayor of Montreal would apparently rather have Oil shipped in tanker from the middle east vs a pipeline from Alberta servicing the same need.

That's the degree of specious opposition that Alberta tends to face in this confederation.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

The sludge moves anyway. Unfortunately sans pipeline it tends to move more by rail, by tanker, and by means that are arguably much more risk averse to the environment. A fact that seems to elude such people as the Mayor of Montreal just using him as a case instance.

I agree with the premise that the world is too dependent on fossil fuels. But the solutions lie beyond jurisdictional squabbling and negotiating about pipelines under the false visage of greater environmental benevolence.

BE, A province that was founded on exploiting the environment, that exploits everything in forestry, fishing and that floods massive amounts of arable land and that derives energy from massive damming is damning us about environmental stewardship.

Its the hypocritical irony that is hard to get over. Hypocrisy that will outlast even pipelines and oil tankers and hazardous freight and that will continue undeterred. If only they could harness all that hot air for energy.

The people who seem to be more opposed are those who are closer to the pipeline in the lower mainland, which leads me to believe that all their recent concern about the planet and saving the environment is just a cover for NIMBY.

Vancouver is chock full of vehicles burning fuel from the Alberta oil sands - yes, Virginia that is where it really comes from. Now if they could run their economy on hot air and hypocrisy, they wouldn't need fuel from Alberta.

Agreed, but its even more tenuous a position for them, or Montreal to have, as we have instances of people living in industrial ports where any resource is shipped in in huge tanker amounts and yet they choose to turn their noses up at pipelines under the supposed protection of environment umbrella while seemingly ignoring all the huge tankers.

Yet more coastal habitat has been damaged/ruined by Tankers than pipelines and tankers put multi jurisdictions at risk. With tanker spills they can occur anywhere and effect huge areas anywhere. With pipeline usually only the immediate areas are at risk. makes sense to have pipelines near water as mitigated and controlled and monitored as possible though.

With more pipelines comes more tanker traffic .

If servicing international markets, yes, if serving domestic markets, or industry no. I specifically mentioned Montreal as the Mayor of Montreal would apparently rather have Oil shipped in tanker from the middle east vs a pipeline from Alberta servicing the same need.

That's the degree of specious opposition that Alberta tends to face in this confederation.

Agreed. I'm in favor of a pipeline to the east coast , opposed to the west coast . At Same time it's being protectionist , putting our own first , using our own oil. That defeats this globalist ideology , ...a hypocrisy at its finest .. for its not o.k to import oil , yet o.k to expand to other markets, expecting them to buy ours

Something I was wondering about. Maybe someone in the biz knows more. I was thinking about NE BC and all the oil and gas business around Ft. St. John, Dawson Creek, Ft. Nelson etc. A lot of this product must come via pipeline or other means into Alberta, into Edmonton or other places for distribution. BC collects a lot of royalties in that 1/4 of their province. I was wondering if this was the case or are there pipelines taking this product south through BC. If not, and they stop TransMountain should we stop the flow of their product coming here for distribution whether it be pipeline or other means and hurt their bottom line.

Something I was wondering about. Maybe someone in the biz knows more. I was thinking about NE BC and all the oil and gas business around Ft. St. John, Dawson Creek, Ft. Nelson etc. A lot of this product must come via pipeline or other means into Alberta, into Edmonton or other places for distribution. BC collects a lot of royalties in that 1/4 of their province. I was wondering if this was the case or are there pipelines taking this product south through BC. If not, and they stop TransMountain should we stop the flow of their product coming here for distribution whether it be pipeline or other means and hurt their bottom line.

A trade war would just hurt everyone and is not the best way to go. I don't think the BC Greens will be a long term part of the government, the numbers are not strong enough for it to last very long.

I don't think some in BC appreciate how dependent they are on Alberta oil and transportation routes. I think they will eventually realize antagonizing their neighbour is really not a good idea.

Something I was wondering about. Maybe someone in the biz knows more. I was thinking about NE BC and all the oil and gas business around Ft. St. John, Dawson Creek, Ft. Nelson etc. A lot of this product must come via pipeline or other means into Alberta, into Edmonton or other places for distribution. BC collects a lot of royalties in that 1/4 of their province. I was wondering if this was the case or are there pipelines taking this product south through BC. If not, and they stop TransMountain should we stop the flow of their product coming here for distribution whether it be pipeline or other means and hurt their bottom line.

The Spectra Energy natural gas pipeline transports about 55% of NE BC's natural gas south to the Lower Mainland. Enbridge recently acquired Spectra so now owns this pipeline.

Spectra's pipeline also ties in to the Alberta pipeline network at Boundary Lake. There is also the separate Alliance pipeline running from Fort St. John through Edmonton which presumably handles the other 45% of BC natural gas.

So to somewhat quote Klein if we let those left coast creeps and bums freeze in the dark this also means we aren't selling oil either and not receiving royalties.
Regardless something needs to change in Canada and soon.

So to somewhat quote Klein if we let those left coast creeps and bums freeze in the dark this also means we aren't selling oil either and not receiving royalties.
Regardless something needs to change in Canada and soon.

Just for the historical record, since I know you weren't attributing the whole quote to Klein...

"Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark" was a bumper-sticker from the Energy Wars era. I know it was in use as early as 1980, because I saw it used in an Uluschak cartoon in the Journal, the week of the first Quebec referendum(a guy wearing the slogan on a t-shirt was encouraging Levesque to jump out of a window, symbolizing Alberta's apathy to the possibility of Quebec separation).

"Creeps and bums" was the phrase Klein used in a speech in '82. He wasn't talking about the energy wars, but about migrant workers who came to Alberta and got into trouble.

It is amazing how those two phrases have merged together in the public memory, to the point where just a few weeks ago, a columnist at CBC attributed "Let the eastern bastards freeze etc." to Klein.

I am not sure if what he said was any better or worse that Klein's remarks, but that is what happens when a Province feels its economy is threatened. I think it is a sign of growing frustration in Alberta, which the Feds especially would be wise not to ignore or misjudge. Right now most of the anger and frustration in Alberta is directed against BC, but it could easily turn against the rest of Canada if people here start to feel the Feds are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The Premier has already said that retaliation may not only be limited to only BC.

I am not sure if what he said was any better or worse that Klein's remarks, but that is what happens when a Province feels its economy is threatened. I think it is a sign of growing frustration in Alberta, which the Feds especially would be wise not to ignore or misjudge. Right now most of the anger and frustration in Alberta is directed against BC, but it could easily turn against the rest of Canada if people here start to feel the Feds are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The Premier has already said that retaliation may not only be limited to only BC.

Is it possible to enact legislation where we remit our federal tax to the Alberta treasury and then they transfer the money to the federal government?

That way they could withhold transfers in times like these and the federal government would have to deal with them in court as opposed to going after individuals.

It would take some effort to set up but it might be a nice tool to have.

I am not sure if what he said was any better or worse that Klein's remarks, but that is what happens when a Province feels its economy is threatened. I think it is a sign of growing frustration in Alberta, which the Feds especially would be wise not to ignore or misjudge. Right now most of the anger and frustration in Alberta is directed against BC, but it could easily turn against the rest of Canada if people here start to feel the Feds are part of the problem and not part of the solution. The Premier has already said that retaliation may not only be limited to only BC.

Is it possible to enact legislation where we remit our federal tax to the Alberta treasury and then they transfer the money to the federal government?

That way they could withhold transfers in times like these and the federal government would have to deal with them in court as opposed to going after individuals.

It would take some effort to set up but it might be a nice tool to have.

That is an interesting question. I am not a lawyer or a constitutional expert, but from what I know the province can enact legislation, but the Feds can over ride it if they want, so that might be the answer.

adding a cute little emoticon doesn't make calling for the presence of sturmabteiliung on our streets as being anywhere close to acceptable regardless of the initial target you seem to think you would be "not at all averse to".

you never cease to amaze me with your constant efforts to offend while hiding behind the pretense of humour.

Probably a lot of the criminals were locals, but politically its always easier to blame outsiders. I suspect the migrants were more likely to just leave and go home after their jobs ended.

No, to Top_Dawg's recollection the whole kerfuffle came about shortly after CPS had made some crime stats available.

Excerpt from one of his speeches:

"Even if we have to put them all in jail, on top of one another, we have to do it." – A speech to the Calgary Newcomers' Club in January, 1982, in which, as mayor of Calgary, he blasted "creeps" and "bums" who moved to Calgary from Eastern Canada "without jobs, without accommodation and without money to take care of themselves."

And interview with the Globe:

"Sure I said creeps and bums, but that applied to people anywhere who rob banks and snatch purses and mug senior citizens. It just so happens that most of the robberies here last year were committed by recent arrivals.… I never said Easterners were creeps and bums." – A February, 1982, interview with The Globe and Mail.

Even as hyperbole, it's not a good rhetorical device to compare cops you like to brown-shirts. The Nazis are the most discreditied political movement in human history, and NOBODY identifies with them anymore(well, except for people who are neo-nazis, literally).

And given your oft-proclaimed heterosexual tendencies, you might wanna be careful about which Nazis you're lionizing. The SA(aka brown shirts) were not exactly the straightest arrows in the NSDAP, if you get what I mean.